Message 2003-02-0027: Note 9.4.1

Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:34:47 +0100

[Previous by date - Re: what prevents us from establishing...]
[Next by date - Art. 20]
[Previous by subject - Notation for Distincton Between Systems]
[Next by subject - Now online: Critique of Benton's (2000) "critique" of the Ph=]

Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:34:47 +0100
From: "peter a. cejchan" <cej@gli.cas.cz>
To: PhyloCodeList <PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Note 9.4.1

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_//5aUL58b+q8ZBW5LMejzA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Do we really need node- and stem-based definitions? Perhaps molecular =
phylogenies (seem to) force us to use these. However, adhering solely to =
apomorphy-based definitions would simplify Art. 13. Are there other =
cases for node- and stem-based d's than are the distance-based =
phylogenies? Just my opinion, as usually...

++pac

--Boundary_(ID_//5aUL58b+q8ZBW5LMejzA)
Content-type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-2">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Do we really need node- and stem-based =
definitions?=20
Perhaps molecular phylogenies (seem to) force us to use these. However, =
adhering=20
solely to apomorphy-based definitions would simplify Art. 13. Are there =
other=20
cases for node- and stem-based d's than are the distance-based =
phylogenies? Just=20
my opinion, as usually...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>++pac</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

--Boundary_(ID_//5aUL58b+q8ZBW5LMejzA)--

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!